explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Gun Control Points of Argument, the First part.

SleepingDragonAug 25, 2018, 3:18:15 AM
thumb_up67thumb_down5

Introduction

Over the past years, the United States had suffered heavy casualty from some incidents which the media call 'mass shooting'. Actually, it is massacre or mass murder because it involves at fewest four deaths (FBI definition).  The term 'shooting' simply implies that the murderer shot people.

Because of shooting incidents, many people (idiotically) called for gun-control. Legislatures pass laws restricting  purchase and/or ownership of firearms. However, that does not stop any more shooting at all.

Those idiots who support gun-control (some call these people gun-grabbers) come up with numerous flawed excuses in order to prove their point. They are to be listed here with some analysis.

Points of Arguments

Point 1) 

Gun control works; these people state the Ban will stop any further shooting cases. Some will point out more laws will stop shootings, including  designated Gun-Free Zones or expanded background checks. Another group want something called 'common-sense' gun laws.


Those (who support universal background checks) argue that if you have nothing to hide, you don't worry background check. However, a person's background has to be updated more frequently than on a daily basis. Sutherland Springs church shooter's background did not include his domestic violence (DV) case (back at Air Force) at the time he purchased his weapon. That counter-example alone indicates it is government failure to stop a shooter (because Air Force did not send his DV record soon enough). Furthermore, it is part of 'common-sense' gun laws and still failed to stop him buying a weapon.

Moreover, the same persons do not understand that criminals do not follow laws. Just because you post a sign labelled gun-free zone does not mean the shooter will turn away and stop shooting. 

Adam Lanza was already denied by background checks but still was able to take weapons (his mother's) to Sandy Hook (a Gun-Free Zone).
YouTube HQ shooting happened in gun-free Zones although no deaths resulted except the shooter. 


Conclusion: An inanimate sign did not, does not, and will not stop any shooter from shooting people.

Point 2) 

Firearm ownership is the problem; more guns means more shootings; or, having guns means people will shoot people.  They also argue that "this is the 21st Century and not the wild west".


There are always advocates who teach safe and responsible use of firearms. This argument always shows cases of irresponsible use, contradicting such advocates.
Historically, the Wild West was rather peaceful, everyone had property rights. (https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west) (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/09/thomas-dilorenzo/was-there-a-culture-of-violence-in-the-old-west/) 

Of course there were exception to peace such as William Bonney.

Point 3) 

Armed citizens will not make any difference. 

This argument is indicated by Mother (fucking) Jones article here: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check/ (Myth 4 on that page)

Some argue that "what if the shooter uses machine gun and you just have a handgun, you can't stop the gunner". (source: Twitter, link to be added)

What stops the gunner from even firing the first round depends on numerous factors. Texas church shooting (2019) only left one wounded and the shooter dead because a lot of attendees carried and these carriers reacted. This church defense also debunked Mother (fucking) Jones.

Another argument: government has tanks and jet planes but you have only rifles. (argument is seen over here on Minds as well)

Technology does not matter; Nazi Germany once had STG-44 (pictured as banner) while American still using Garand and British Lee-Enfield; yet Nazis still lost. Again, tactics matter, not technology.

Point 4) 

Hoplophobia: fear of firearms. Just because they don't like guns, for them, it means nobody should have them. 
This is a pretty selfish and ignorant argument. The people's rights to keep and bear arms does not yield to other people's feelings and emotions.

Also: Fuck Your Feelings

Point 5) 

There is the police, you don't need guns.

     This point also corresponds to the argument that "only police and military (the government) should have guns" or advocates of confiscation.      
     Example: Bloomberg's Everytown poster advocates that, in case of home invasions, you should  "call 911 and wait". 


      However, Parkland shooting (Feb 2018) showed 17 deaths due to law enforcement's failure to intervene. Regardless of cops' reactions, cops are always minutes (or hours) away when you have only seconds to save yourself and/or your loved-ones.

Historically, 1992 Los Angeles Riot caused LAPD too occupied to suppress the riot, leaving Korean residents to counter-riot on their own. Gun control would definitely leave them dead.

Recently, nationwide Antifa / BLM <<Riots against the police>> have left cops fleeing or not doing anything. Good luck with these cops helping you. Ask NYPD about how DeBlasio hates them.

Update: circa 19 April, 2020, a shooter in Nova Scotia disguised himself as a police officer and committed rampage that left 23 dead. This kind of people still cannot answer how the police can help in this case. As of now, nobody knows how this shooter obtained weapons to commit such rampage.

Another update: Kenosha riots happened because of lack of police presence, leaving Kyle Rittenhause shooting rioters on his own. McCloskey couple had to point their weapons at BLM gang because they showed up at McCloskey house by breaking the mansion fence and gate. Again, no cops showed up.

When police becomes the sole user of firearms, it always becomes tyranny. Maryland police raid that left a software developer dead is one example. There are more.

Point 6) 

There are Gun control in other countries and they work well. 

Most-used 'examples' include Australia, United Kingdom, and Japan. 


     Australia did not have total confiscation at 1996 following Port Arthur shooting. Handguns are kept. AU still has high crime rates using other tools. 


     UK is flooded with Moslems who commit crimes. London has become ridiculous to a point to ban knives (yes, including household knives, a slogan on one of these banners: 'Real men use fists') but Moslems would spray acid to attack people. However, there is no acid ban yet.


      Land of the Rising Sun (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/) has one of world's highest suicide rates (Wikipedia has Japan 26th on its list, source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan) (Korea being another), none of the suicide methods involve shooting. Those who would kill themselves would hang themselves (example: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/06/national/crime-legal/dad-alleged-schoolgirl-murderer-dies-apparent-suicide-sasebo/), jump off tall buildings, or self-suffocate (http://bukupe.com/summary/1036), or others. 

There are still murder cases in Japan. These involve using edged weapons (eg knives or swords) yet JP does not ban knives. In some cases the killer strangled the victim(s) bare-handed. By gun-control logic, [guns are used too often in killing people thus ban guns] everyone should get their hands chopped. None happened. Tokyo subway attack (1995) did not involve shooting at all. Kyoto anime studio arson (2018) caused enough deaths to be counted as mass-casualty yet the Japanese government does not ban people using fire. 
When a person wants to harm or kill, s/he will use ANY methods available.

Japanese people enjoy shooting despite gun-control. How they do it? They use airsoft weapons or travel to Hawaii.

Point 7) 

Argument against the Second Amendment (2A).

Some arguments include:
  a) 2A only applies to hunting. rebuttal: 2A never mentioned its purpose. Americans have Rights to possess weapons.

 b) 2A only applies to muskets. rebuttal: Your Rights never ends with certain level of technology.

c) 2A only applies to militias as a group not individuals. Example: 'What part of "well-regulated militia do you not understand?' (comment actually seen over Twitter)

       rebuttal: The 2A also says "rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It never says how many people should gather together to own weapons.

There is an extreme case: Repeal the Second Amendment. Idiotic and fat Michael Moore is one such example. He even "authored" his version of replacement Amendment over Facebook (source to be cited).


Point 8) 

    " Those crazy gun-nut sons-of-bitches should go fight ISIS or North Korea since they love their guns so much".
     Some rebuttals include "gun owners would definitely go" or "The country won't send gun-control people because they don't even know how to fight". Analysis is not done over these rebuttals.
     By that logic, gun-control advocates can move to People's Republic of China or DPRK (North Korea) since all these countries impose severe/total gun control, they'll love that law. Just wish them luck that they won't get stabbed.


That's all I can list on this blog, feel free to add more in comments while part two is coming.

Switch to App
Minds Take back control of your social media!